[Ninja Duck]

Science told: hands off gay sheep
December 31, 2006
Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality.

http://www.timesonli...2524408,00.html

Nowadays, no one can play with genetics without people screaming "Third Reich!" at them. Thanks for ruining it for us, Hitler. Thanks a lot.

[civilian_number_two]

I know this'll sound a lot like the guy who when pulled over for speeding says "aren't there some real criminals you could be catching?" But what the hell: couldn't these folks be trying to cure blindness, deafness, spina bifida, Down's Syndrome, etc etc etc?

"Don't worry, we're using government money to fund these studies, but you'll never see the results turned on humans. The government likes homosexuals. We're just interested in science for its own sake."

[Despondent]

And if only Martina had waited a couple of days, she could have emphasized

“How can it be that in the year 2007 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?”

She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

Not to mention sheep. To think that only gays would be deeply offended, deeply offends me.

[Slade]

Civ: I was just thinking the same thing. We start eugenics, and we waste our time on the sexuality of animals? What about all of those actual disabilities?

Doesn't this whole science saying it can affect sexuality kind of completely ruin the whole "it's a lifestyle choice!"/"it's a sin and you can change" thing that the right-wing totes around? Of course, then it'll just be a sin not to have the treatment, I suppose, and pretty soon they can start blaming the mothers of gay people on top of the gay people. (Let's be honest. They're not going to start cutting them slack no matter what the argument is.)

[Spoon Poetic]

Personally, I'm interested in this research... Except for the "curing" homosexuality part. I mean, I guess it wouldn't be so bad if all your rams were ignoring the lady ewes and you really needed some bebbe sheeps... But to sell it to humans... I dunno. It's great to think that they're finding that homosexuality can, in fact, be an inborn trait as well as or even maybe instead of a lifestyle choice. But making something that can "cure" it is basically saying that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be eradicated. That's even worse than what's going on now. I guess maybe if someone was gay and they really didn't want to be gay for some reason, like maybe they're hardcore Muslim or something, maybe it wouldn't be so bad, if they were the only ones that got to choose... I don't know. This whole thing brings up so many questions on ethics and rights and everything. It's kind of scary.

[TruJade]

Why are we messing
around with animals again.

Didn't we learn from the last time
with monkeys and thats

supposably how AIDS came about
Poor sheep first we strip them of their wool

then we clone them
now we're 'curing' their gayness.

Who really cares if there gay!
Besides hello, they're scientists if they were really

worried about the sudden change in the
rams preference they could do what

scientists do and make test tube baby sheep.
Thus offending millions more,

but at least the general population
is used to that kind of cruetly.

[Chyld]

Was there really a big probem with gay sheep in the first place?

This reminds me of something odd my mum said earlier: "Gay people wear baggy pants, because of their colostomy bags". My motheris a nurse.

[Cyzyk]

They keep changing their minds about whether gayosity (maybe that isn't a word, but it sounds like it should be, so don't be hatin' my vocabularity) is chemical or whatnot, but in any case, it does qualify as mentally unnatural behavior. This is tempered by the fact a lot of what we do is unnatural, so don't take it too seriously.

But they're SHEEP! Research will happen, and it's better done here than in China, where it's a crime to carry a Downs Syndrome child to term. These people are crying over queer sheep while the Chinese are engaged in a wholesale slaughter of the retarted and simply undesired?

[civilian_number_two]

There's nothing "mentally unnatural" about homosexuality (a dictionary-sanctioned alternate to "gayosity"). The only thing "unnatural" about homosexuality at all is that gay sex doesn't produce children. Howveer neither do heterosexual blowjob, and you don't hear too much about changing the constitution to ban those. And neither is "mentally" unnatu8ral; they're just unnatural in that sex is had without procreation. SFW?

It's possible that as you say the Chinese are not as into Human Rights as North Americans; I don't have all the stats on that so I'll stay out of it. But the issue isn't sheep; the concern, already raised here, is that if science can isolate a gay hormone, then it may one day be considered criminal to bring a gay child to term. So it's not sheep; it's humans. I know, that's a slippery slope argument, so I don't really want to go there, but this decade has seen a sharp increase in talk about homosexuality, and not in a good way.

[Cyzyk]

Oh, it's unnatural. It goes against all norms, both chemical and cultural. But this is not the place for that argument.

[civilian_number_two]

Oh, it's unnatural. It goes against all norms, both chemical and cultural. But this is not the place for that argument.

Well, this is thread on the possibility of trying to alter homosexuals so that they will tend toward heterosexuality, beginning with experimentation on animals, so I think this is the place for it. If not here, then I'm not sure where else. Besides, you brought it up. I might as well say I think your mom is cheating on her girlfriend, but let's not talk about it.

But fine, start it somewhere else then. Don't try to have the final word on something just because you don't have the stones to defend your point ("here's what I believe, but this isn't the place for it .... ")I'd like to see you state a case for the "unnaturalness" of something that exists in nature. And "cultural norms" have nothing to do with "nature," by the way.

While you're at it, please tell me where you stand on those heterosexual blowjobs. Because they went against all cultural norms even 50 years ago, and now they're pretty standard fare. Are they "unnatural?" Do they suggest a chemical unbalance? I really need to know where you stand on that as well.

[Jordan]

Wait one minute, now homosexuality is a gene? I thought it was just a preference, like coffee brands and stuff.

This hormone might make you more or less effeminate, but gay? If there is a gay gene then that means some people are born to lose according to religions that say homosexuality is evil.

I refuse to believe that, evn if it is true.

[Despondent]

"I can't help it, I'm gay. I was born that way. I have nothing to do with it!"

So fix the gene; End of probem. Now nobody's born that way.

--

What about gay parents who (admit it or not) forcibly raise their children to grow up gay? How's that espousal of principle any different?


--


Sorry to paraphrase Jerry Falwell (who's really not all that bad), but what happens between a man and woman in their bedroom is between them; A physical exp​ression of love given by God. I don't see a problem allowing blowjobs under these circumstances (et al). As for the anal course someone will eventually bring up: it's in their bedrooms. none of my business.

[Spoon Poetic]

So is gay sex. I oppose gay exhibitionism just as much as I oppose straight exhibitionism and no more or less. Aside from that, "it's in their bedrooms. none of my business."

[Despondent]

Waiting for that. One falls within the bounds of what you find acceptable according to your belief system, the other lands in mine.

Mores, tradition, tabboo be damned.